Innovation

5 Key Elements in Planning a DT Initiative

Published date: June 23, 2021 в 5:16 pm

Written by:

Category: Digital Transformation,Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

We opened this series with two posts dealing with the barriers to implementing Digital Transformation in your organization. “Why start with the negative?”, one may ask. First, it is often most useful to discuss the difficulties involved in a certain endeavor, especially when the general tone of the topic is one of unabashed hype. Second, as with other innovation-related endeavors, a major managerial error in DT is jumping into a buzzy-sounding initiative while disregarding its potential pitfalls and therefore doing so without proper commitment and preparations. One key message of posts 1&2 in this series is, therefore: avoid launching a DT initiative if you are not willing to confront the challenges, that will certainly arise, with determination.

In this post we present 5 Key Elements to consider as you prepare to launch your DT initiative. In future posts we will zoom-in to some of them in more detail.

Key Element 1 – Goals and objectives

Why are you launching this initiative, and what are you trying to achieve by it? It may seem redundant to even mention this obvious rule, given that it is the basic starting point for any activity. But DT efforts, specifically, often tend to be driven by the wrong motivations which can doom them from the outset. This is a short list of some of the common drivers for launching a DT initiative:

1.    Public opinion, boards, Wall Street, stakeholders are demanding it;

2.    Competitors are embracing it, and this threatens to give them an advantage;

3.    Talent flows to organizations that are more digital;

4.    Customers demand it;

5.    Suppliers become digital;

6.    Legacy systems and technologies are becoming obsolete;

7.    FOMO, including both the frivolous and the serious versions.

All and each can be legitimate, but only motivations that are exposed and shared can serve as guides for choosing the right path forward.

Key Element 2 – Where are you now?

It is useful to see the path to Digital Transformation as consisting of three stages:

1)    Digitization – roughly, transforming your paper records into bits and bytes;

2)    Digitalization – implementing the tools and processes that allow access and utilization of the digital information;

3)    Digital Transformation – rethinking and redefining your processes and your modus operandi to make the most of digital possibilities and to adapt to the needs of a digital environment.

Organizations often mistake steps 1 or 2 with DT, whereby they not only miss opportunities for reaping the full rewards of DT, but often suffer damage by digitalizing processes that work better in analog. It is therefore crucial to clearly identify where the organization is at the outset of the initiative. This is less obvious than it may seem, given that business units or departments of the organization can be in different stages of the digital journey, that Stage 2 can superficially feel like a transformation although it isn’t really, and that some stakeholders may very much resist the implications of admitting that Stage 3 is still in front of them.

Key Element 3 – What do you aim to change?

Which area(s) will be transformed?

When you say your organization wants to “be more digital” or to digitally transform itself, you must define what it is that you are attempting to transform:

o Products and offerings   o Business models           o Productivity

o Processes – internal         o Processes – external     o Decision making

o Communications – internal and external                o Other 

Some of these may be difficult to transform without changing adjacent processes, others can be dealt with independently. It is sometimes better to go about the transformation gradually, rather than attempting the change all at once. Both approaches have their pros and cons.

What’s going to be D about it?

Even when a certain part of the business has been selected for digital transformation, for example product offerings, even then there are a variety of aspects that can be tackled and transformed and, in many cases, only some of them will. A full transformation of, say, a specific product or process into digital may, and often will, include changing how you:

o     Sense                      o     Collect                         o     Aggregate/store

o     Analyze                  o     Communicate          o     Visualize

o     Recommend        o     Act

 

Key Element 4 – Technology

When we work with a company to assist in DT, we find it useful to compile lists of technologies. The lists tend to vary somewhat according to domains and with time. In the list below there are four main families with 16 technologies (fluid number) that are often applied to achieve DT. It is not realistic to expect that any single person will be proficient in, or even just deeply knowledgeable about, all of these, but it is becoming increasingly necessary for every executive to have at least a superficial understanding of what they each mean, enabling them to turn to relevant experts with intelligent questions to assess potential threats and benefits for their area.

1.    Thinking and analyzing

a.      AI – Artificial Intelligence

b.      ML – Machine Learning

c.       Neural Networks/Deep Learning

d.      NLP – Natural Language Processing

2.    Vision and processing

a.      AR – Augmented Reality, VR – Virtual Reality, and MR – Mixed Reality

b.      Computer vision

c.       Image processing

3.    Computing and Communicating

a.      Big Data/Deep Data

b.      Cloud

c.       5G

d.      Quantum computing

e.      Social media

4.    Sensing and making

a.      IoT

b.      Industry V4.0

c.       Robotics

d.      Wearables

Key Element 5 – Behaviors

As is becoming increasingly obvious, even to the more technically inclined, digital transformation depends less on the technologies deployed and more on the people employed in implementing them. The mindset shift required for a digital transformation is elusive and can be understood as the adoption or strengthening of a set of crucial behaviors. The following, non-exhaustive list includes some items that are recommended independently of digital context, while others are more D-specific:

  1. Be flexible, break fixedness;
  2. Focus on data: collect it, store, analyze, explore, etc.;
  3. Beyond listening to the customers: interact with the customer in exploratory mode. Both internally and externally, engage employees in new digitally transformed platforms and engage customers to use them.
  4. FFD – Function Follows Data/Digital: search for data, collect it and analyze it even before you understand its potential uses and benefits. This is necessary to overcome the chicken-egg problem of no budget for collecting data until you can prove benefits of it.
  5. Everything is a pilot: pilot as soon as possible, even partially (MVP style), progress from pilot to pilot, treat any version as a pilot for the next.
  6.  Solutions can come from a variety of sources, both internal and external: develop internally, hire the knowledge, assign to freelance, outsource to vendor, acquire tech, acquire company, partner with academia, JV, and usually a combination of some of the above.
  7. Beware overload of data and technologies – do not assume that their existence will guarantee wise usage or any usage.

Following our two posts on barriers to DT, in this post we have reviewed 5 key elements to consider when setting out on a digital transformation journey. In future installments, according to your questions and comments, we will zoom in and expand some of the elements, sharing examples and tips.

Digital Transformation – the SIT version – part 2

Published date: June 16, 2021 в 5:00 pm

Written by:

Category: Digital Transformation,Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

In our first post on the difficulties faced by organizations attempting Digital Transformation, we shared a few sentences about each of 4 common barriers:

1. It is truly difficult to trust experts on DT, especially the “experts”.

2. Mixed signals from top management.

3. Security concerns (real and imagined).

4. Ignorance of relevant technologies.

 

Here are 6 more, completing our not-comprehensive list of 10 Common Barriers to Digital Transformation:

5

Regular resistance to Innovation, probably amplified. In other posts you are welcome to read about some of the multiple types of resistance that people exhibit towards any kind of innovation. They all apply to Digital Transformation, just as they do to any attempt to change processes and habits, in general. But it seems that for many people innovation of the digital ilk can be even more frightening than other variants, maybe due to the fact that many of us feel threatened anyway by what feels like a digital invasion in all walks of life. We are bombarded with digital information, we fight with our children about what seems to be their excessive immersion in the digital sphere, we read of, and sometimes experience the imminent dangers and ethical dilemmas of an increasingly digitalized existence. DT at work therefore seems to be yet another front in a losing battle.

6

Problems related to interfacing with existing IT technologies and organization (real and imagined). Most companies striving for DT do not attempt to jump directly from the Stone Age into digital. Most, or even all, have legacy IT systems and whatever new elements will be introduced will necessarily have to fit in with existing infrastructure, hardware and software. This implies: a) a need to allocate additional budget (good for IT, less attractive for Finance); b) a threat to the professional authority of current internal IT experts; c) bugs and clashes between old and new systems; d) an opportunity for renewing aging systems, which creates a dilemma of how far back to go with replacement, versus adding new technologies on top of existing ones. These dilemmas can paralyze the entire DT initiative.

7

Lack of clear ownership: regular business owner versus IT/tech lead, versus owner of “Digital” if there is one. In one organization you see a digital expert brought in and put in charge of “Innovation” without any knowledge or previous experience in the latter, while in another an innovation expert is assigned the responsibility for a “Digital Transformation” project she has no ability to lead. In both cases the reasons for the decision are an attempt at efficiency (“can’t waste two headcounts on the fluffy stuff”) and a foggy understanding of the differences and interconnections between the two topics (“he’s an expert on digital, that’s what innovation is all about” or “she’s an innovation expert, she can cover the digital transformation part”). IT will also be angling for a position at the DT table (“it’s all about IT, the systems we’re in charge of”), and HR wants their voice to be heard (“it will all depend on the people we hire and on upskilling digital capabilities”). They are all obviously right, often leaving the organization without a clear leader for DT, or worse, with several.

8

Lack of structured data to start building on. Imagine my surprise when the VP IT (and responsible for her organization’s DT initiative) of a leading HMO in the US confided in me that, while they are truly committed to a genuine DT process, she expects the interesting steps to kick-off at best only within a couple of years since they are currently grappling with the uninspiring task of converting their (literally) millions of medical records into digital format. Even technologically oriented companies tend to have a huge installed base of “dumb devices” that were never designed to collect data, or minimally so, or produce unstructured and difficult to use data. This lack of accessible data often makes it difficult to even imagine digital offerings (the “what”) let alone how developers should go about tackling the challenge (the “how”).

9

“Digital” is seen as an add-on, or a translation process to be applied to products and offerings. In 2004 we worked with a large publisher whose management had the foresight and courage to push strongly for “more digital”, quite a while before this had become the ubiquitous trend it is today. But, alas, their strategy was to create a Digital Team that received all the analog materials at the end of their development process to “convert them into digital”. Surprisingly, even today this is still common practice in many companies, where digital is seen as a kind of different language to which specifically trained experts will translate the regular (analog) products, processes, systems, or communications. First, this approach dramatically limits the potential benefits of DT, since you can only translate into digital what you were able to imagine in the analog world, rather than creating and inventing using digital possibilities built into the process. Second, the approach often creates inferior results since many analog-conceived concepts do not translate well into digi-speak.

10

Timelines and pace: development cycles do not fit the rhythm of change in digital technologies, nor the pace of change in customers’ preferences and habits. Most companies have a single well-structured R&D process, if at all. When they engage in the development of digital offerings, or introduce digital elements in their regular development, they often tend to utilize their existing development process, stage gate structure or other process management and control mechanisms. Even organizations that adopt Lean Startup or other agile methods often embed them into their overall approach due to lack of understanding at top management levels that the rules of the game are different in a digital context.

We’ve seen, therefore, that there are (at least) 10 barriers and stumbling blocks to a successful Digital Transformation. Luckily, we have developed a special pixy dust that can be sprinkled on databases and clouds to…. OK, just kidding. But in consequent posts we will share some thoughts and guidelines that are useful when engaging in this challenging task.

Digital Transformation – the SIT version

Published date: June 9, 2021 в 4:55 pm

Written by:

Category: Digital Transformation,Innovation,Organizational Innovation

In the past 2-3 years, many of the companies we are in touch with have been dealing in one way or another with Digital Transformation. This can happen for several reasons, some more relevant and logical, others less so. Among them: pressure from owners, stockholders or the public; the stress of seeing competitors enter the field; new hires (usually younger) flowing in with both knowledge and aspirations in the digital sphere; customers’ expectations (realistic or imaginary), and more. While working and talking with these companies, we at SIT have been accumulating quite a bit of experience in helping organizations overcome the challenges and reaping the rewards of Digital Transformation. Among other insights collected in our DT work on four continents, we have identified 10 Barriers that hinder these efforts. In this post we are happy to share 4 of them, with a few notes on directions for overcoming them. In the next posts we will share some of the others.

You will encounter a variety of barriers and road bumps:

4 (of 10) Barriers for Achieving Digital Transformation

1.

It is truly difficult to trust experts on DT, especially the “experts” that abound, because they (we?) all have biased POVs (and are probably all trying to sell you their wares, hard or soft). The first step in searching for an expert is to clearly define an expert for what you are looking for. Companies engaging in Digital Transformation tend to rush to providers of digital systems and services: transferring to the cloud, designing snazzy apps, implementing blockchain, before they have a clear and coherent picture of what they are trying to achieve and why. They tend to forget in spite of the warnings, that DT is first and foremost about transformation, and only then about digital.

2.

 

Security concerns (real and imagined). It is true that the more digitally sophisticated your processes become, the more vulnerable they are to tampering and cyber-attacks, and these are not at all imaginary. The recent ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline Company, that stopped fuel flow to a large chunk of the US East Coast for over a week, was just a frightening reminder of the hundreds of similar attacks that have probably occurred this year on private companies’ IT infrastructures. The good news is that when cyber security considerations are built into digital practices from the outset, risks can be strongly mitigated. And, yes, it’s safer to ride in horse-driven carriages but were we supposed to give up on motorizing our company fleets because of this?

3.

Ignorance of relevant technologies (and terminology) often accompanied by a fear thereof (the “Quantum Computing Effect”). In our experience there are about 15-20 technologies that one needs to know at least a tiny bit about in order to intelligently assess your DT status and potential. Quantum Computing, for example, is probably not something you need to implement in the next year or two, but you would be surprised how soon it could revolutionize your field (pharma developers, for one, should be, and probably are, very alert to the possibility). Our list of 18 technologies to watch is not exhaustive but a good start.

 

4.

Mixed signals from top management:

a. The “ambidextrous” effect – the demand that you keep selling current offerings like crazy and at the same time invest plenty of time and energy on DT;

 

b. Management demands DT but is itself lacking in all digital or transformative understanding and behaviors;

c. Management demands DT but is unwilling to invest substantially before you present them with a concrete business case, although how you can be expected to produce such a business case without receiving some budget for (at the very least) collecting and analyzing data is anyone’s guess.

Dealing with (higher than you) management is notoriously difficult, obviously, but we find that delicately pointing out the abovementioned points can facilitate what can turn into a constructive conversation.

In upcoming articles and posts, we will share some of the other barriers as well as some of the methods and techniques we apply to the challenge. We are also always happy to get on a short call, with those who would like to pick our brains or use us as a sounding board on anything to do with thinking and acting differently to achieve your objectives.

Common Innovation Myths & Blind Spots

Published date: June 2, 2021 в 4:45 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation

Innovation is a nascent discipline and, as such, very few of its “truths” and tenets have had the opportunity to mature and to brave the test of time. Less diplomatically, one can say that much of what is said about innovation is not worth the flip-chart paper it is written on. Strangely enough, even though the topic is so new, some common views have already attained the status of myths, which makes it a bit difficult to unseat them and thus avoid some of the damage that these beliefs cause in organizations.

Becoming aware of their existence and their effect is an important first step in ridding oneself of their effect. For each of the 7 Elements, we share one related myth that needs to be busted. (Link to the 7 Elements’ article below).

SKILLS

Myth #1: Artists are creative. Engineers, accountants and bureaucrats are not.

Alternative: Look around you – most innovations you will see were invented and designed by engineers.

It is commonly assumed that some of us have the innovation gift while others simply don’t, rendering them incapable of innovating. This is incorrect and, in addition to academic research, we have 26 years of experience in the field to prove it. The truth is that skills and processes that lead to innovation can be taught. Everyone can significantly improve their skills, regardless of their baseline.

GOVERNANCE

Myth #2: Innovation cannot be measured

Alternative: ROI – Return on Innovation, absolutely must be measured, otherwise no serious innovation effort will be sustained in the organization.

To many, innovation is amorphous and mysterious and thus can be difficult to measure and monitor. There is even a fear that measurement itself can stifle innovation. This is true, but only if the wrong indicators are used at the wrong time. That’s why it’s important to clearly define what the organization means by innovation. Once there is a clear definition, it is possible and crucial to measure your ROI, although the way to do it is not always intuitive.

OUTCOMES

Myth #3: Innovation is mostly about creating products or services.

Alternative: Innovation can and should be applied to every aspect of your business.

We advocate an innovation mindset, not merely to create new products and services, but to “innovate in what you do”. If applied in a structured way, using appropriate tools, any task or process can be innovated on, to achieve your goals. Apply the right innovation tools to your productivity efforts, your digital transformation initiatives, and supply chain challenges to improve results.

RESOURCES

Myth #4: Top Management’s only job is to launch the innovation program and budget it.

Alternative: Without ongoing management commitment, the effort cannot be sustained.

Top Management very often makes a brave decision to launch an ambitious, company-wide innovation effort, and even budgets it generously. But, very quickly, responsibility is relegated to lower ranks in the corporate hierarchy, and executives impatiently adopt the role of demanding quick tangible results. Instead of supporting the effort for the long haul, management becomes impatient to either celebrate prematurely or move on to the next “management-flavor-of-the-month”.

PROCESSES

Myth #5: Brainstorming is the best way to come up with new ideas.

Alternative: It has been proven time and again that BS is not effective in generating truly novel ideas.

Brainstorming has many advantages but, as research and corporate experiences have shown time and again, creating novelty is not one of them. By placing constraints on your thinking and using a structured approach, you can consistently achieve success.

BEHAVIORS

Myth #6: Innovation and creativity are always fun.

Alternative: Dabbling in innovation, as enrichment or mental exercises can be lots of fun, but true innovation, in the sense of challenging your deep assumptions and firmly set ways of working, mostly involves hard work and requires discipline. There is much in the process that one can enjoy, but true change of beliefs and habits cannot be all fun and games. That is why very often a facilitated team effort with clear deliverables is required to achieve impactful innovation.

 COMMUNICATION

Myth #7: Those who oppose innovation programs are wrong. They are simply “resisting”.

Alternative: Very often, those who “resist innovation” have an important point to make.

Resistance to innovation often emerges from the “wrong” motivations: fear of change, turf wars, oversized egos, etc. But, this opposition doesn’t always need to be “overcome”, rather, it is often very useful to listen carefully since those who oppose change often do so for valid and solid reasons that need to be dealt with if the results are to see the light of day. Resistance can also be a sign of the strong potential for novelty, pointing at valuable dig-sites.

These are only several of the common myths and traps that organizations deal with and fall into when embarking on innovation journeys. Talk to us, and we’ll be happy to hear/read your thoughts, and also to acknowledge – when relevant – that we ourselves are as vulnerable as anyone else to being wrong(:

What are some myths that you’ve been trying to bust in your organization?

A Glimpse into SIT’s 7 Elements Model

Published date: May 26, 2021 в 4:42 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation,Strategy

In today’s article we continue with insights, content, and learnings shared before, during, and after our Behind the Scenes of Corporate Innovation meetup, co-hosted with our friends at 3M.

SIT’s “7 Elements” Model for Organizational Innovation was briefly introduced at the meetup as a framework to address the main challenges voiced by participants. Since then, we have further developed the model to serve as a robust strategic planning tool for cross-organizational innovation programs.

We use this article as a medium to share how the model allows organizations to take their Innovation Pulse: analyze their current state to plan a focused and customized innovation strategy with clear metrics. The model is the brainchild of our 26 years’ experience working with over 1400 companies in 75 countries. Over time, we formulated what parameters need to be taken into account when developing and managing a sustainable practice of innovation diffused throughout a (multicultural) organization.

Working with the 7 Elements Model brings you three significant results:

1)     Assessment of your current situation in respect to innovation (“the Innovation Pulse”). Create a baseline measurement for where you are at the start of the process.

2)     Definition of your objectives for how the innovation program will help your organization achieve its strategic business goals

3)     A roadmap for achieving these objectives.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

I. ASSESS & VISUALIZE

The first step is to assess and plot on a diagram, the organization’s current efforts according to the 7 distinct—yet extremely interconnected—elements needed for a sustainable innovation capability in the organization

 

II. DESIRED STATE & MAP THE GAP

The assessment allows you to view a clear picture of current state of activity and satisfaction in the organization along with areas that could/should be improved. A second diagram, an ideal model of your desired state in terms of innovation and how it can serve your business’s strategy will be created in parallel. The gaps between these 2 states will dictate objectives for creating the action plan.

III. DEFINE YOUR PLAN OF ACTION

Strategic discussions regarding the gaps and resource allocation will determine priorities, speed and scope of implementation, as you move closer to the desired state. SIT assists in building the plan and delivering the transformation through a variety of formats including:

  • Facilitation
  • Consulting
  • Training
  • Outsourcing

The task of transforming into a highly innovative organization is, without a doubt, a demanding journey, yet one that is worthwhile and can be made simpler, clearer, and better-managed using the 7 Elements Model.

4 Ways HR Can Cultivate a Successful Culture of Innovation

Published date: May 19, 2021 в 3:14 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation

In the beginning, corporate innovation belonged to R&D. It was viewed as a top-down affair to which only the upper echelons of the company were privy, and you were lucky if you received an invite to the secret club.

Fast forward to today, innovation is now perceived as a culture and mindset; companies – from the long established to new startups – are seeking to instill it at all levels. HR, given its role in the organization, is in a unique position to be a major enabler for establishing mechanisms so that a culture of creativity and entre/intra-preneurship will flourish. Here are four ways HR can shape, frame, and facilitate a company-wide conversation about innovation:

1. Everyone is an innovator

“Accounting is a department. Marketing isn’t. Marketing is something everyone in your company is doing 24/7/365.” Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson, Rework – Similar to marketing, companies have traditionally dedicated departments for innovation . Now, the expectation is for innovation to stem from anyone in any department. We, at SIT, define innovation as “thinking and acting differently to achieve your goals”. In this light, innovation is a valued improvement to a situational status quo; it is a way to perform your job better. It’s not tied solely to a company’s products and services, but also, and perhaps more importantly, to its productivity, operations, and processes. Adopting this outlook, HR can help to ensure that its organization’s innovation agenda will promote an inclusive and empowering work culture.

2. Innovation Roles

Years ago, my colleague recommended the book “Cool Careers for Dummies”, full of practical advice for keeping one’s career relevant. Last October, the WEF published their mid-Covid findings estimating that by 2025, 85 million jobs will be displaced by machines, while 97 million new roles will emerge . Career definitions are constantly in flux. So, while we just established that ‘everyone is an innovator’, it is still necessary to put official innovation roles in place; people who have accountability for aggregating activities and outcomes.

We’re talking about Innovation Managers, Architects, Coaches, Ambassadors, etc. Some of these may be full-time positions in their own right, while the majority are most effective when these responsibilities are assigned to employees distributed across the company, in addition to their current roles. HR can assist in determining and characterizing the roles, identifying individuals to assume official innovation positions, and defining the criteria to be assessed during the interview process.

 3. Personal Innovation Goals

Declaring a culture of innovation and actually having people participate and evolve such a culture are two different things. There needs to be a system in place for monitoring innovation KPIs that cultivates a working environment where responsible risk-taking is encouraged. Including innovation activities in people’s annual goals and then assessing them during performance reviews keeps the checks and balances in place to make innovation a reality.

4. Opportunities for Innovation: Gaining Skills and Putting Into Practice

HR and L&D offer many opportunities for training, programs, and events that people can join. More and more companies are promoting approaches like Lean Start-Up, Intrapreneurship, Hackathons, etc. as frameworks inside which to innovate. Many used to believe that creativity is a talent reserved for the few, the vast majority never got to develop this muscle. Today, we know better. Structured creativity tools exist; people can be taught to innovate. The same WEF report identifies the top skills which employers see as rising in prominence include critical thinking, analysis, problem-solving, and skills in self-management such as active learning, resilience, stress tolerance and flexibility. In other words, creativity and innovation. Skills; not talents. Developing, running, and making innovation training programs available broadly; including practical application of these new skills to their organizational roles as part of these programs; and then keeping employees accountable for using their new skills after the training, proves to the individual that they really can develop these skills in a useful way. Practical business results emerging immediately during the training program, legitimizes participation for all– even if one’s manager doesn’t understand why it’s important for her direct report to be an “innovator”.

HR has the mandate to nurture organizational culture. A culture of innovation requires providing both the tools and the outlets which will promote both the individual’s growth goals and the company’s business goals. It’s no secret that people want their ideas to be heard (and acted on!), and to be constantly challenged with opportunities to move ahead in the workplace. HR prioritizing its “innovation tab” will not only assist in improving the company’s bottom line, but help with employee retention and workplace satisfaction, as well.

4 Most Critical Innovation-Related Challenges

Published date: May 12, 2021 в 4:43 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Organizational Innovation

The Meetup was held in 3M’s Innovation Center: 40+ participants from a dozen Minnesota-based organizations convened to share and learn from one another how they deal with some common challenges that they encounter while trying to promote innovation. Prior to the meeting, they raised a long list of 67 challenges, but there were many that had some overlap and as the SIT team analyzed them, we realize that the vast majority fall squarely into four main categories.

 

4 Most Critical Innovation-Related Challenges:

 

1. How do we de-risk our innovation efforts

“Lack of external leverage; too many options to choose from makes it even more difficult.” Companies are accelerating their front-end efforts; they are producing more ideas and launching more development projects. However, they feel that this only exacerbates the stress of having to decide where to allocate development resources, how to select those products or services with the highest probability of success, and how to manage their launches.

SIT’s take on this: Of course, entering the experimentation funnel with a shorter list of quality ideas that have already been initially vetted by market potential, feasibility, and connection with company strategy will help with resource allocation decision-making early on. Additionally, the shift toward more agile-like approaches, often through Lean Startup, should in principle alleviate this stress, since such approaches dictate that instead of focusing on de-risking a specific “big” idea, one should test numerous MVPs and quickly pivot based on the results of “experiments”. 

But it seems to us that although many companies have officially adopted an LSU process, they find it difficult to wean themselves off the habits of testing and seeking a high level of certainty for each specific innovation before launch.

 

2. How do we change our company’s culture/mindset?

 

“We need to be focusing on long-term development, not the ‘right now’”. “Internal cultural shift necessary to transform our business model.” The most common task these days goes way beyond launching a product, or even an entire product line. Key words are “culture”, “change” and “transformation”. The desire is to find ways to influence the entire organization, change strategies and business models.

SIT’s take: We’ve seen this process evolve over the past 26 years, from attention to a specific local result such as solving a problem or launching a single product, to the demand to generate an entire pipeline and roadmap, all the way to the current situation, in which CEOs and top management either realize the need or are pressured by their Boards or stakeholders to lead transformational changes in their organizations. This can often lead to futile high-profile and costly changes-for-the-sake-of-changing, but, if well-managed by a committed senior leadership team, innovation can truly transform and invigorate a company. Like all major changes, the transformation needs to evolve over time as short-term milestones are hit at a cadence that the organization can digest while ensuring that the day-to-day routine business that keeps the lights on continues to thrive.

 

3. How do we accelerate / acquire speed and agility?

 

“Innovation takes time to hatch. How do we innovate within the fast-paced environment?” Companies are not only pressured to change, but to change faster. This obviously places additional demands on managers, often accompanied by stress.

SIT’s take: A paradox ensues, whereby managers are expected to lead profound transformations, rather than superficial change, which requires time and patience; but, since the environment changes at an ever-accelerating pace – requiring rapid and immediate adaptations – there is less patience and resources for profound long-term change processes to take place. More than ever, small-scale quantifiable value needs to be created as part of a clear plan as to how this accumulated value results in the profound change, which was the original goal.  

 

4. How do we listen and get closer to our customers?

 

“Doing adequate research to uncover new problems.” “Lack of customer interaction to direct innovation.” After decades of effort to get closer to the client, listen to the Voice of the Customer, observe, empathize, research and analyze, companies still feel that true understanding and insights tend to elude them, and therefore are searching for novel approaches.

SIT’s take: Although true that innovation is useless unless it addresses a customer need, it is a mistake to believe that true innovation is born from listening to VoC. Being attuned to your customers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for innovation success. Instead, we recommend a combination of: a) breaking the more-of-the-same-VoC mold by interacting with your customers proactively through co-creation engagements; b) using structured innovation methods to come up with ideas that are, in turn, validated with customers. Don’t use VoC as the starting point for innovation, but as an assessment tool for the amount of resources to invest in bringing and innovative concept to execution.

To summarize, we found, not surprisingly, a high level of congruence between the most pressing innovation-related issues in a wide variety of organizations and positions. And how some of the ill-advised Common Innovation Wisdom exacerbate, rather than alleviate, many of the challenges associated with innovation.

How Innovation Varies Across Countries & Cultures

Published date: May 5, 2021 в 10:21 am

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Innovation Facilitation,Organizational Innovation,Problem Solving,Strategy

Tags: ,,,,,

Have you ever wondered how different cultures view innovation? Why are some countries more willing to adopt new advances while others fight to keep old systems in place? In today’s article, we’ll be taking a look at two innovative research studies that reveal the impact of culture on people’s ability to innovate.  We’ll also show you how to use this information to create a work environment conducive to innovation. To begin, let’s jump right in to discuss how a country’s culture affects the early stages of innovation.

What Affects the Early Stages of Innovation?

In a study on innovation in European countries, innovation researchers wanted to see if understanding different national cultures could help them predict certain behavioral patterns when it came to initiating innovation. To do this, they categorized cultures using four dimensions –– power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity — and then tested the relationship between each dimension and innovation. Today, we’ll concentrate on the first two dimensions: power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

 

Power Distance Measures: Just How Much Power Lies in the Hierarchical Structure

 Cultures with large power-distance measures are those with formal rules and a centralized decision-making system. These societies keep information-sharing to a select few — only those in power, know the master plan and everyone else remains in the dark. On the other hand, small power-distance cultures don’t rely so heavily on a rigid chain of command. There’s free-flowing communication between hierarchical levels. Both of these traits help foster an environment where creative thoughts and ideas can flourish, which may ultimately lead to breakthroughs. So, which culture do you think does better in the initiation phase of innovation…the one with small or large power distance? If you guessed small power distance cultures… you are correct! Countries in this category include the UK, USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Nordic countries.

This innovative research shows that high power distance cultures, such as Belgium, France, Poland, and Portugal, may be unknowingly inhibiting their innovation efforts due to this trait. If people are more likely to feel confined and afraid to come up with new ideas for fear of disapproval, they won’t even try. This strategy will severely limit innovation initiation, according to the study. The next dimension may also greatly impact the early stages of innovation.

 

Uncertainty Avoidance: Whether Tense Situations are Avoided or Tolerated

You may not think there’s a connection between uncertainty avoidance and innovation, but there is according to the research. See, cultures with high uncertainty avoidance adopt an attitude of “What’s different is dangerous.” People are encouraged to follow the rules to a T — without ever stepping out of line. When this type of environment is created, you’ll often see a workforce that’s unmotivated to think creatively. As a result, they may struggle to come up with new ideas and innovative solutions to existing problems.  Not only that, your team may be much more resistant to change. And as you can imagine, this way of thinking can negatively impact your innovation efforts. On the other hand, a low uncertainty avoidance culture constantly revises rules and makes allowances to bend existing ones, given the right circumstances. Cultures that rank low on this dimension also expect conflict and see it as just another part of life. Ambiguous situations are viewed the same way — since they’re inevitable, you must always be ready to adjust your plan and adapt accordingly, two things that work well when it comes to innovation. Now before we dive into the specific traits shown by innovative cultures, it’s important to understand a few fundamental findings first:

“Existing cultural conditions determine whether, when, how and in what form new innovation will be adopted,” as our next study shows.

 

Cultural Impacts on Innovation

Which characteristics do cultures with high innovation rank well on?

Researchers discovered that there’s a greater acceptance of innovation when the foundation is already ingrained in the culture.  For cultures built on long-standing traditions, innovation may seem as if it’s going against the societal norms that have been passed down for generations. Therefore, it may not be as well-received or encouraged. Yet, researchers discovered, and research revealed, that when societies are willing to take traditions and adjust them to fit modern times, innovation is much more likely to happen. To that end, there’s one more factor that may contribute to fostering an innovative culture: whether people believe they can make an impact.

Cultural or organizational “class systems” can become like shackles — with people unable to move and think freely.

When applied to the work environment, it’s virtually impossible to motivate your team or community to work at their potential (or, as often is required to innovate, to exceed their potential) when they don’t see their hard work paying off for them in some regard. “Most people work in the hope of reward,” and if they don’t see any, they’ll be less inclined to work hard. People need to feel like they can make a difference and that their ideas are not only heard but also used whenever possible. And they need to do this in an environment that fosters community and relationships.

For an innovative culture to flourish and thrive, the scientists learned, this form of social capital is needed.

 

Developing Herd Immunity to Innovation

Published date: March 15, 2021 в 4:30 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation

How did the terms “brainstorming” and later on “design thinking”, become synonymous to “ideation” or “innovation”? This is a strange phenomenon, made doubly puzzling by the fact that both BS and DT are respectively pretty useless and not-so-helpful when it comes to driving people, teams and companies to break their usual ways of thinking and create true novelty.

Brainstorming, famously invented independently but near simultaneously by Alex Osborn and Walt Disney in the early ‘50s, played an important role in its early days in promoting creativity and innovation, especially in the corporate world. Formerly downtrodden executives suddenly received a “license not-to-kill” and more importantly not-to-be-killed that allowed them to speak out their ideas in relative safety. In the closed hierarchical culture of those times, this was invaluable and contributed to a true cultural revolution. Some 70 years later, BS remains a tool that may help motivate participants to be active in a discussion (if they are not absolutely fed up with the process, as often happens), drive them to share ideas they already have (if they haven’t had plenty of opportunities to share them, as is the case in many organizations these days) and promote team-building. So, what is there not to like? Brainstorming is harmful only inasmuch as its proponents claim that it is a dependable method for generating new ideas. It isn’t, and this is confirmed time and again by the experience of its corporate users. A quick search for “research showing that brainstorming doesn’t work” provides plenty of material to substantiate this fact.

Why, then, does BS continue to be used nearly synonymously with “ideation” and “innovation”? There are several possible explanations. Here we will mention only two, that are of special interest, since they also partially explain the allure of brainstorming’s heir: Design Thinking.

1)     BS and DT both evolved with the support of strong, cool proponents with a strong knack for PR (the ad industry and “the IDEOs” respectively).

2)     Both BS and DT are outstanding at giving their users the illusion that innovating is easy and fun.

Design Thinking is, obviously, more complex than BS, and is useful in many ways. In fact, anyone engaged in innovation would do well to learn and utilize the method. Its false claim is more subtle than that of BS, and is actually related to BS. There are various ways of describing DT, but a reasonable depiction divides the method in three main steps:

1)     Empathize and Define Needs

2)     Ideate, challenging assumptions

3)     Prototype and Test

DT does an admirable job in steps 1 and 3: it markedly enhances the abilities of individuals and teams to gather insights and get into the user’s shoes. This is invaluable for any business or anyone who aims to supply a service or product. DT has also greatly enriched innovation processes, and thinking in general, by emphasizing the importance of visualizing and concretizing ideas through prototyping, and to the courageous practice of going out and testing ideas.

It is only in step 2, that DT falls, literally, into the BS trap. For what does DT offer as the crucial step between beautifully garnered insights and compelling prototypes? What does Design Thinking propose as a method for “ideating” and challenging assumptions? Brainstorming.

Design Thinking is, therefore, a useful framework for tackling innovation. It just lacks a key component, the heart of the process, i.e. a trustworthy method to break out of one’s fixed ways of thinking, and thus create novelty. There would have been no harm done, if the originators and evangelists of DT would have presented it for what it is: a useful collection of tools for harvesting insights, for visualizing and for prototyping, placed within a sensible 3 (or 5) step process. But for some reason the world was also asked to buy the notion that in order to innovate:

a)      Everyone needs to think like a designer, and

b)     All you need to do is empathize and then prototype

To this they added, what in terms of PR was a stroke of genius:

c)      The best way to innovate is to have fun.

But, in fact:

a)      Why should the role of designers, cool and visual as they are, be a model for a CEO rethinking her company’s strategy, for a scientist manipulating a molecule or for a teacher coming up with novel ways to teach a history class? There are, indeed, some aspects of innovation, especially as it relates to product development, that are similar to the work of a designer, but that is a far cry from claiming that all innovation should be conducted as if it were a designers’ task.

b)     Empathic insight collection is crucial, as is prototyping, but the key element, the missing middle, is breaking one’s fixedness. This can be done with structured tools. We recommend ours, obviously (SIT), but any effective non-Brainstorming method will do the job. Without it, you will most probably find yourself rehashing your existing ideas with cosmetic changes.

c)      Having fun in life is obviously better than not having fun. But is it conducive to innovation? In a certain, very limited sense, this is true. Having fun is energizing, and a group that is enjoying itself may persist longer on a given task. But achieving true innovation is nearly contrary to “having fun”. True innovation requires changing the way one thinks, and that is a painful endeavor, and the motivation to do so more often than not arises from discontent and discomfort.

Why, then, have Brainstorming and Design Thinking cornered the innovation market, becoming synonyms for ideation and innovation? They are easy to adopt, give an illusory sensation of easy wins and have useful benefits that can easily be mistaken for innovation. And, of course, great PR has created a herd phenomenon, with the perverse result of weakening innovation instead of enhancing it.

What is needed is a rich framework, combining useful elements of empathic design, visualization, prototyping and experimentation of the Lean Startup ilk with a robust methodology for breaking out of existing thought patterns. In the past few years we have accumulated experience in creating such “braided” formats, based on SIT’s structured (and strongly non-brainstormy) approach to ideation, bringing predictability and method to the seemingly mysterious core of the entire innovation process.

Published originally as a post for Innov8rs.com:

https://innov8rs.co/news/how-executives-develop-herd-immunity-to-innovation/

The No-Forecast-Kit for Dealing with the COVID World

Published date: May 20, 2020 в 2:00 pm

Written by:

Category: Innovation,Methodology,Problem Solving,Strategy

A Short Article, a Toolset and a Loooong List of Vectors

The purpose of this post-COVID Kit is to help guide your thinking and discussion about a crucial issue: how should one prepare for and live with the changes brought about by the global pandemic. In the first two pages, I describe a certain approach to the issue, of which the gist is: do not attempt to forecast what is going to happen, but pay close attention to certain forces, vectors or trends, and figure out how they can influence you and your organization, and then try to proactively engage with these developments. The second part is a set of questions, based on SIT’s methodology for innovation, that allow you to convert the list into a practical exercise in thinking about the future. The third, and last part is a list of 23 topics, each followed by 5-10 bullet points, each of them pointing to at least two directions, often contrary, in which some force or vector can play out in the coming months or years.

Contents

Article

Toolset

A. Exploring the list

B. Breaking Mental Fixedness*

1. Task Unification*
2. Subtraction*
3. Qualitative Change*

List

A. Individuals, Families

1. Mindset and Attitudes
2. Mental Health
3. The Family

B. The Collective

1. Society
2. Education
3. Communications
4. Government
5. Religion/Spirituality
6. The Arts
7. Travel and Tourism

C. Health, Science, Technology

1. Public Health
2. Science
3. Technology
4. Data

D. The Globe, the Planet

1. Sustainability
2. Global Politics
3. Global Economy

E. Work, Business

1. Work, employment
2. Business: General
3. Retail
4. Supply chains
5. Transportation
6. Manufacturing

Article

I am not a futurist, nor are my colleagues at SIT – Systematic Inventive Thinking. As famously remarked by Niels Bohr, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”. And much more so, when a cataclysmic event of global magnitude is unfolding as we write. What we specialize in, and what this document is about, rather than exploring predictions about the future, is attempting to shape this future, even if on a modest scale.

There are two confounding aspects of the attempt to forecast even the near future in 2020. The first is the well-known butterfly effect, but with billions of butterflies fluttering their wings simultaneously in an unprecedent manner. Thus, the Mozart of 2040 may have found her vocation when her mother, after 30 days of quarantine, out of desperation, downloaded a piano-teaching app to calm the noisy 3-year-old. The second is the appearance of strong and often opposing vectors that seem to cancel each other out, but, in fact, do not. So if a million couples who otherwise would have stayed together are driven to divorce, while another million couples about to divorce rediscover the bonds that held them together and don’t, in term of global statistics nothing has changed, but for two million families life’s course has swerved dramatically.

But, even though the ability to forecast with a high probability of success is very limited, it is still extremely useful, even necessary to pay close attention to some strong vectors or forces that are emerging as a result of the virus and, even more so, the various manners in which the world has chosen to deal with its effects. There are two prevailing views as to the changes: they, too, are contradictory, and yet both can prevail at one and the same time. One view holds that in the end, most people, and definitely businesses, are looking more than anything to resume life as it was pre-COVID. Expect, therefore, relatively small changes, mainly temporary adjustments. The other party claims the opposite: the pandemic, with its imposed restrictions and behaviors, has triggered changes so fundamental, that humanity cannot but evolve into a state of “new normal”. I use the expression “party” advisedly because I believe that both views have an element of “wishful forecasting”; those who wish to maintain the status quo are attempting to will reality to do so, and those who see an opportunity for – finally – a major upheaval, are loath to give it up. In this document, true to the spirit of our approach, we claim that both can, in a sense, be right at the same time. Each view represents a strong and potent force pushing in a contrary direction, and as reality will be shaped by the interplay between both, it would be wise for any individual, group or organization to consider the potency of both without trying to conjecture which will prevail.

Below, you will find a non-exhaustive list of 23 areas in which one can expect the world to change following the COVID crisis. There is no attempt here to predict what will eventually happen in any area, only to map some relevant vectors of potential change in each of them. In many cases, the vectors are contrary in their directions, which raises two questions: what is the value, or is it not tautological to claim that, for instance, people will either strongly yearn and search for the contact of other humans or will develop a defensive stance of distancing themselves from their fellow inhabitants of the globe. Our claims are that both vectors are very likely to be felt post-COVID, and that they will not necessarily cancel each other out. The way this will unfold is difficult to predict, but if your business or organization depends on prospects’ relation to other humans, for example, you would be wise to consider that many of them will probably be living with the conflict of both feeling strongly the need for human contact, and fearing its risks and consequences.

Another example: Say that you need to make decisions that depend on the future of shared rides globally. Do we predict an increase post-COVID, with a strengthening of the Ubers of the world, or rather a decrease, as new models emerge, or passengers return to pre-rideshare habits? The most useful answer may be a combination, or at least an invitation to consider at least two tendencies. The first is an aversion of potential riders to spending time in a confined space with people of whose health they have no information or guarantee, touching surfaces that have probably been in contact with other strangers not so long ago. The second is a set of economic pressures that may push both users and drivers to depend even more on shared rides, the former due to difficulties in owning a car and the latter as their only alternative for employment. In addition, the evolution of shared rides may be affected also by other tendencies, with their own combination of (sometimes conflicting) vectors: will the post-COVID world be (even) more unequal, or will this crisis be an inflection point, by exposing the perils of inequality and the interdependence of rich and poor, thus pushing towards creating a more level playing field?

Thinking about the food and beverage industries, to look at yet another case, can we expect a strong consumer tendency to seek healthy food, finally acknowledging that rather than trusting their fate to vaccines and antivirals one’s first duty towards oneself is to keep healthy, by, among other means, eating fresh and natural food? Or, alternatively, will we see a surge in consumption of fast (and junky) food, due to fatalism (“Why should I give up the food I like, if a random virus can kill me anyway?”) or to a habit created or strengthened by weeks upon weeks of ordering pizzas and hamburgers in quarantine? Our prediction: both. Recognizing these two highly probable and opposing vectors, a corporate player in this space could reach one or several practical conclusions, all logically, if not always ethically, valid. For instance:

a)      Gamble on the healthy option, using the opportunity to dare not only to supply the partly-met need of health seekers but also to lead the laggards into healthy consciousness.

b)     Play the fast food card, not necessarily cynically, but catering to the “new lazy” who absolutely refuse to cook, by competing with take-aways and expanding the variety of easy food for the home.

c)      Recognizing both tendencies, find ways to provide offerings that answer both the desire to be healthy and the tendency to outsource household tasks.

d)     Lead a revolution in the role of food manufacturers in society and the economy, by recognizing their critical share of the responsibility for public health.

e)     Disregard the health issue, and focus, instead, on convenience and/or safety as the greatest consumer concerns.

We see, therefore, that even lacking a crystal-ball-clear view of the future, one can engage actively in creating it. Disregarding COVID- related developments comes at a risk, since what can be expected with high probability is that COVID will cause a ripple effect of strong forces or vectors for change. But, contrary forces at play again, when imagining the unfolding of exciting and/or frightening (depending on one’s imagination and inclination) futures, one should never underestimate the strength of individuals’ and societies’ tendency towards homeostasis, a tremendous pull to what feels like the safe equilibrium of old and comfortable habits.

To summarize: trying to forecast – futile; but watching trends, interpreting them, figuring out possible effects and proactively attempting to adapt and influence the future – a must.

 

Toolset

There are multiple ways to use the list below, some of them are presented here, divided in two modules:

A)      A set of questions that help in exploring the list systematically;

B)     Several tools for challenging your assumptions and opening your minds to come up with inventive ideas to deal with the phenomena described in the list.

A. Exploring the list

  1. Read though the topics, enjoy entertaining your own thoughts, guesses and predictions about each area;
  2. Identify those areas that are relevant to you, your organization, your business, and ask yourself what the probabilities for certain futures are, and what would their emergence mean for you;
  3. Select one or two areas that don’t feel directly relevant to your organization, activity or business. Challenge yourselves to figure out whether and how these seemingly unrelated forces will in fact influence you;
  4. Most challenging, but potentially most rewarding: which futures do you feel strongly about, and what can you do to increase the probability that they, rather than their alternative, comes to pass.
  5. Focus on an area/topic and add vectors and forces to the list. Discuss them as well.
  6. Review the “positive” vectors: how can you strengthen them?
  7. Review the “negative” list: how can you overcome these?

B. Breaking Mental Fixedness*

In this section, a set of mental tools is presented, that allows, in addition to stretching one’s mind as recommended above, to tackle head on one’s “mental fixednesses”, the patterns that restrict a thinker to old and well-trodden paths. There are additional tools in the SIT method that can be applied as well, but these are some of the most obvious candidates.

      1. Task Unification*

a) Select a certain force or vector, which intuitively seems to be working in your favor in some way;

b) Ask yourself: can I see this vector as a resource? Meaning, can I make it work for me?

i) By acting to promote one of my objectives?

ii) By acting to promote something positive that I had not been aware of?

c) Now select a vector or force that intuitively feels as if it can affect you negatively.

d) Repeat the resource exercise (1b) with the “negative” vector, but this time you will need to overcome your intuitive negative sense of this vector, since you will be searching for ways to employ it in your benefit. Ask yourself:

i) Can this, supposedly negative vector, actually work in my favor?

ii) What would I need to do to make this happen?

       2. Subtraction*

a. Some of the vectors, trends or forces will cause certain elements which seem crucial to you, your activity or your business to simply disappear, or be radically reduced temporarily (e.g. tourists for an airline, during quarantine). By browsing the list, take note of these cases as they apply to you. This disappearance we call a Subtraction.

b. For each of these cases, ask yourself the counter-intuitive question: what can you gain, how can you benefit, and which opportunities will open up thanks to this subtraction? Can it be that, even when the temporary subtraction ends (say, tourists return), you can continue doing some or all that you put in place when they were gone?

c. Ask yourself the following counter-intuitive question: COVID is forcing you to do without element X (say, face-to-face meetings), and you are learning how to manage with this subtraction, and even find benefits in it. What if COVID would have forced you to do without element Y (say, without meetings at all, or without internet connections)? Can you think of benefits for that as well? Is it worth experimenting with this option?

        3. Qualitative Change*

a. Each force, trend or vector you review immediately conjures in your mind a certain chain: if A will indeed happen, so will B. Sometimes B will be negative, which means that you will automatically view A as negative as well (since it seems to inexorably lead to B). Identify an A that seems to lead to a negative B.

b. Create two sentences to use as triggers for invention:

i.           Given A, how can you prevent B from happening?

ii.           Can you imagine a context or situation in which: the more A the less B? Meaning, even though as A grows there normally is more of (negative) B, can you imagine a situation in which the relationship is flipped so that the more A the less B?

c. Repeat (3b) with other forces or vectors.

*These tools and principles are part of the SIT – Systematic Inventive Thinking methodology. Read more about them, and their use, in www.sitsite.com

List

This list of forces, trends and vectors covers 23 areas, that are divided into 5 general groups (A-E). It is obviously not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be, but rather covers a wide range of points of view that can serve as triggers for a productive discussion of the Post-COVID world, with or without the recommended Toolset. The list is long. Browse it at leisure, perhaps turning both to some areas that are directly relevant to what you care about, and some that initially feel further away. You will probably be surprised to find that contemplating some of the latter can turn out to be just as productive.

A. Individuals, Families

       1. Mindset and Attitudes

a. Work-life balance. Millions desperately returning to work after being kept away for months versus millions discovering the joys of spending time at home rather than at work.

b. Approach to nutrition: realization that the best way to protect oneself is by maintaining good health, and this is possible through nutrition, versus, health can always be maintained through medication, versus, live as you please and trust the system to treat you when you fall ill.

c. The natural quest for convenience maximized in certain societies where all basic needs are delivered immediately with a digital click, versus the need to factor in safety as the overriding consideration in consuming, and balancing these requirements with cost.

d. Invitation to humility – human beings cannot control everything, versus a deep-seated human hubris – the belief that in the end our science and technology prevail.

e. Belief in science: in times of crisis we can only trust our scientists, versus “science failed us when most needed, and scientists can’t even agree among themselves about the basics of the pandemic”.

f. Individuals feel debilitating uncertainty, living a situation akin to cultural shock, as regular assumptions cease to apply to reality: a strong urge to surrender your decision making to authorities, to those “who know”, versus an impulse to seal out disturbing information and trust one’s intuitions.

g. Impressively, extremely complex and multi-faceted problems can be broken down into sub-tasks and solved by a distributed multi-team effort, versus, even the combined efforts of global talent and technology could not overcome a simple virus.

h. Feeling of dependence on humans, versus dependence on technologies. When push comes to shove only our fellow humans can give us the strength and energy to survive, versus: distanced and split from our fellow humans, our reliance on technology is near total.

i. Apart from phenomena that defy the laws of physics, will we ever be able to say again, of anything, even the wildest scenario, that it is improbable, much less “impossible”?

j. Has this crisis completed the rewiring of our brains, creating humans who can capture and digest only the briefest and simplest twitterized communications, or have we benefitted from this time of relative tranquility and immobility to read, think and discuss profoundly about important issues?

       2. Mental Health

a. Immediate results of the crisis: depressions, anxiety, solitude, or recognizing one’s internal strength and abilities to adapt and overcome adversity.

b. Usage of psychiatric drugs: increased dependency, versus forced cold-turkey and freedom.

c. Addictions: increase due to stress and depression, discontinued rehab programs, solitude, versus forced rehab through scarcity induced withdrawal.

d. Stress levels at record high due to frightening messages and general feeling of impotence, uncertainty and lack of safety nets, versus finding calm in the tranquility of one’s home and proximity of family.

e. Solitude: for the world’s growing number of single-person households, for those whose families do not provide comfort or company, for those who find themselves far from their homes, others?

       3. The Family

a. Rethinking, re-feeling the importance of one’s nuclear family, if there is one, or of having one if you don’t, versus the oppressive feeling of being unable to physically break away from it.

b. Need for keeping close to other humans, versus benefits of social distance, overdose of proximity.

c. Baby boom with welcome/unwanted newborns, versus huge wave of abortions with related political/social conflict.

d. The elderly – their important role in one’s life, their importance and contribution versus the price one pays for their well-being, alternative modes of communication.

e. Violence within the family – rapid escalation following weeks of lockdown, versus exposure of the problem and large-scale treatment by society.

f. Children-parents’ relationship: parents discover their kids who discover their parents and love it, versus same and can’t stand it.

g. What have children learned from the crisis? About their parents’ ability to control their reality, about their family, about the importance of schools, friends, hobbies, or lack thereof.

h. Opportunity for adopting and accepting alternative family models (non-traditional, non-nuclear) by understanding the huge importance of belonging to a community, versus hunkering back to the traditional model of the nuclear family?

B. The Collective

       1. Society

a. The huge inequality challenge: the virus as universal equalizer (“does not discriminate by race or social status”), versus dramatic disparity in rates of illness and mortality along social and economic lines.

b. Realization that the well being of any member of society can strongly affect that of others, that social phenomena can become literally viral, can lead either to a strengthened sense of mutual responsibility towards all parts of society, or to even stronger separation and walling-in of the well off, as they separate and protect themselves from the masses.

c. Coming together or breaking further apart? Expressions and acts of solidarity with those regions or segments of society most affected by the illness, versus isolationist tendencies and blaming of the “other”.

d. Gender: reversal to traditional women’s role in the home accompanied by widespread violence in the family, versus full-time male presence and egalitarian sharing of all family tasks.

e. Gender: Men as weak sex, higher probability of infection, more liable to die, gap in average longevity grows in favor of women.

f. Gender: #MeToo post-CV: losing steam as humanity deals with a host of survival issues, versus returns with vigor, fueled by pressure cooker of quarantines and crisis.

g. Societies with high Gini Coefficients find that a crisis strains the fault lines, bringing to the fore suggestions like universal basic incomes on one hand, versus a reflex of the rich to prepare and protect themselves for future adversity.

       2. Education

a. The role of the kindergarten. Massive realization of the crucial importance of this less prestigious and less budgeted step in the educational ladder, versus experiencing the huge advantage of young children’s spending many hours with their parents and siblings.

b. Homeschooling: the new wave or backlash. Waiting anxiously to re-deposit the kids into educational institutions, versus realizing that having them at home and spending time with them can be an enriching and feasible model for many.

c. Higher education: years of slow ascendance of MOOCs and other online courses accelerated to near-universal adoption of remote learning models vs. finer identification of those aspects that do require person-to-person interactions.

d. General reconsideration of the principal roles of education: transference of knowledge that is deemed important, creating good citizens or enabling individual development (as per Zvi Lam) – when education is decentralized to families.

e. Accelerating (finally) remote digital learning: leveling the playing field through more egalitarian digital education, versus a widening gap driven by high-cost superior digital content and platforms.

f. Opportunity to (finally) adapt pedagogy to technology. When teachers have no choice but to teach remotely, they are forced to adapt their pedagogy rather than falling back on traditional methods and skills, versus total collapse in pedagogy as traditional teachers give up and leave education totally to kids and their families.

g. Will disparity rise when/if a bigger part of education happens at home? Difference in parents’ ability to support home education can lead to focus on parent education, or extra support to counterbalance this effect, or it can lead to widening of the gap.

h. Widespread adoption of the flipped classroom model? Alternative model vying for widespread adoption for the past ~15 years, requires strong abilities of learning at home utilizing digital resources.

i. Education will be perceived by governments as a tool for creating obedient citizens for the next crisis, and therefore will receive extra budget and (at times repressive) attention, versus governments will prefer less educated populations, easier to control in times of crisis.

       3. Communications

a. Role of social media explodes as the only option for maintaining social proximity while socially distancing, increasing the number of people for whom a “friend” is someone you exchange written messages with, and a “meeting” is virtual. Or, social media is mentally associated with lockdown and crisis, driving traumatized users to search for real-life contact.

b. Fake news vs. facts: establishing standards. It is no longer a game; fake news can kill you. Therefore, standards must be established. Versus, no one believes in anyone any longer – there can be no standards since there are no agreed upon experts.

c. Solitude. With technology, even when alone, we are not alone if we can communicate at a distance. Communication has always been crucial, but this has never been so evident. But for some, long stretches of lonely existence revealed how over-saturated they usually are, and how stress decreases when they are less communicated.

d. Decline of face to face interactions versus rebound and consciousness of how much we all need them

e. Growth and importance of independent (from government and business) media. Strong incentive to create and sustain independent outlets but, in parallel, stronger intervention of governments in setting media agenda and controlling media.

f. Digital media thrives as bored viewers are glued to the various screens, increasing exposure to advertising of all kinds, printed media on one hand has increased attention and demand, and on the other hand starved of advertising (plus dealing with logistics and distribution challenges) turns to digital or closes. Will a new model emerge, that can save print?

       4. Government

a. Failure of democracies and advantages of authoritarian regimes in managing crisis situations and enforcing compliance versus failures of totalitarian systems due to lack of transparency, lack of initiative. Jury still out.

b. Local versus national. Only strong central government can deal with magnitude of crisis, versus local leaders and communities taking independent steps as required by their specific conditions.

c. Leadership and lack thereof: rise of the need for strong leaders vs. obvious weakness of relying on the wrong “pseudo strong” ones.

d. Alternative leadership roles: leadership vacuum creates need and opportunity for non-official or non-elected-officials to become the leading voices, or military figures to impose restrictions justified by “emergency measures”.

e. Balance between technocrats and politicians: strong need for politicians to closely consult with professionals on topics in which they have no idea, versus inaction due to endless discussions between experts and lack of authoritative professional answers.

f. Elections by digital platforms become necessary to avoid congregation, but fear of vulnerability and possible interference increases

g. Opportunity for autocrats to dismantle democratic norms and institutions vs. democratic popular backlash through digital platforms and “socially-spaced demonstrations”.

h. Governments’ responsibility to create safety nets for their citizens and population in general becomes obvious (even to “small government faithful”), versus individuals understanding that they can trust only themselves to prepare for next crisis.

i. Who do taxes belong to? Huge unprecedented spend of public money by governments with no clear source of funding, versus fear that this centrally directed spend will allocate resources unjustly and inefficiently

j. Governments must assume responsibility for well-being of immigrants, refugees and itinerant populations out of self-defense, versus migrant populations bearing the price of being away from home and family, and lacking support fro their host governments.

k. Smart cities – huge opportunity to build on existing infrastructures and accelerate development because of need for surveillance and tracking compliance, versus strong backlash due to privacy concerns.

l. Lockdown enforcement creates precedents of mass control over public behavior, especially in cities, versus shift of population back to villages and the country where isolation is easier and more convenient.

       5. Religion/Spirituality

a. Role of faith for people dealing with crisis: huge win of science over religion for many, versus many others who find fortitude precisely in their faith and religious leaders.

b. Decision makers interact with scientists and rely only on data and hard facts, or realize the comprehensive nature of a crisis and carve a space for spiritual and religious leaders.

c. Role of moral leadership in determining strategy: place around the decision making table, versus support for their followers in reality that is a given.

d. Widespread belief in religious or spiritual interpretations of the pandemic (“God’s punishment for our sins” etc.), versus a division of labor between science as explanation and religion/spirituality as guides to behavior.

e. Moral reckoning driving people to organized religion, versus disappointment with minor role of religious establishment in preventing current sorry global state of affairs (pre-COVID).

       6. The Arts

a. Halls and museums will fill up with thirsty art lovers kept away for a long time, versus persistent fear of agglomerations.

b. Public discovers that art can also be consumed from afar, leading to increased appreciation and interest in visiting museums and concert halls, versus leading to lazier habits of art-couch-potatoes.

c. Artists, musicians, dancers have all performed for us at home, many for free, and whetted our appetite to see them live once we can, expanded our horizons and made us better audiences, versus, we are spoiled now and want it for free and on the couch.

d. Variety of models for monetizing art emerge, as desperate artists find way to live from their art in the absence of live events, versus artists give up and find employment in other professions.

e. Collaborative art, facilitated by digital sharing, emerges as the new 21st century medium, or disappears as a fad post-CV.

f. Cross cultural art, free of geographic constraints, grows in importance as part of globalization, versus art follows xenophobic and nationalistic tendencies.

g. Free time at home serves as major opportunity for exposure to art, thus expanding the “base” of art-lovers, versus masses opt for low brow and less demanding activities in their CV-home-hours.

h. Future of museums and concert halls: adapting their physical spaces and installations to pandemic and post-pandemic requirements, versus expanding their strategies to reaching out and distance engagement with their publics.

i. Artists retreat into survival mode, versus celebrity artists follow Cardi B’s (and others’) example to take a strong stance in front of their followers.

       7. Travel and Tourism

a. Visiting other countries will have lost part of its charm for some, but perhaps become a lifeline for the more claustrophobically-inclined.

b. Return in droves to beloved patterns of travel after lifting of bans, versus appearance of new models of tourism (socially-distanced? More local? Remote and isolated? Ecological?)

c. Technological solutions as enablers of travel: screening travelers for fever, filtering and protection in flights and other confined spaces, navigation and translation to minimize contact with strangers, etc. versus technology as a replacement for physical travel, as in VR and AR tours.

d. Post Corona border control using a variety of technologies to enable or restrict travel, by scanning, comparing data to data bases, identifying travelers’ conditions and more.

e. The future of Airbnb – crash as travel contracts, as does trust in the cleanliness and safety of private homes, versus rebound as the company adapts to new realities with novel measures.

f. Tourists prefer sea and sun tourism, away from the masses, versus tourists flock back to cities, thirsty for human contact.

g. Airplanes taking off dangerously after being grounded for weeks or months, versus fleets in best shape ever due to planes finally resting and receiving plenty of maintenance and attention.

h. Importance of hygiene on planes, passengers avoid confined cabins, preference for private flights.

C. Health, Science, Technology

       1. Public Health

a. Discovery of fault lines: weakness emerges in supposedly robust health systems. Low correlation between national health expenditure and readiness of countries to confront the pandemic

b. Strong drive for change of a health system that is perceived as having failed in its main role, versus glorification of the health system that saved us all.

c. Gearing up for new strains and mutations: focus on solving the immediate legacy of CV-19 and its aftermath, versus searching for a universal solution to all future types of virus.

d. Change of priorities: investing heavily in hitherto impoverished national health systems, versus changing the paradigm and rethinking the entire model.

e. Recovering from damage wrought by distancing strategy: keeping the social-distance mentality with a stepwise approach to relaxing constraints, versus identifying the perils of distancing and finding ways to be safely together.

f. Immunization and vaccines: huge emphasis on search for an ever-expanding arsenal of vaccines, versus opting for alternative strategies to combat illness, given the obvious limitations of the vaccine strategy for influenzas.

g. Resource allocation: dramatic increase in budgets for public health, versus widening the gap between poor public services with a parallel system for the wealthy.

h. Scenario planning: strengthening and reopening of forecasting and preparedness units vs. perception that it is impossible to predict so better focus on generic preparations.

i. COVID-19 as “dry run”” for catastrophic scenarios: pandemics of a global scale and grave risks have occurred on average every 300-400 years, so the probability of another one soon is low, versus this was just a mild version of what we can soon expect to be hit by.

j. The ascendance of telemedicine. Necessity has proven that telemedicine is far more effective and accessible than anyone predicted, leading to rapid acceleration of the genre, versus CV exposing the dire need of personal and close primary care to maintain health and thus protect the population from future pandemics.

k. Importance of digital health: the huge importance of data, its analysis, translation into insights and rapid deployment of conclusions, versus the limitations of too much data leading to inconclusive or multiple recommendations and therefore paralysis.

       2. Science

a. In the COVID global theater, science plays lead role of savior, only carrier of hope to billions, and is vindicated as the exclusive approach to dealing with any important challenge, versus powerful pull of religion and spiritual beliefs as only answer in a world devoid of certainties of any kind.

b. The sight of scores of highly esteemed scientists viciously disagreeing on what feels like hard facts erodes the credibility of science as arbiter of truth.

c. Science is fully harnessed to practical purposes, further strengthening the tendency to prefer applied science over theory, versus deep understanding that underlying basic science and theory are the basis of all the anti-COVID wizardry.

d. Countries find that organizing their efforts to confront the crisis requires a cross-disciplinary approach, as do scientists in search of cure or vaccine. Silos, once broken, will remain porous, versus a tendency, as problems become more complex and the need to solve them more acute, to specialize in ever narrower mini-fields enabling an even deeper understanding of limited phenomena.

e. Role of data as a leading tool in the process of science, often replacing the need for “wet” science, serving both as creator of hypotheses and their confirmation or refutation, versus anecdotal evidence that the clinician or experimenter in the field is privy to certain types of insight that the “cold numbers” will never reveal.

f. Even as huge collaborative data-driven science is being performed, a rise in the importance of good old observation, with scientific insights stemming from anecdotal clinical evidence accumulating in real time.

g. Enthusiastic embrace of cross and multi-country collaboration with science as the universal language of truth, versus enhanced competition between countries and realization that only few countries have the budgets and resources to conduct state-of-the-art research.

h. Cuts in funding for science and research as part of general tightening of budgets, versus increase in scientific spending as only defense against future pandemics and catastrophes.

       3. Technology

a. Accelerated pace of technological development was already a cliché pre-COVID, but the dramatic need for immediate solutions, expressed in the towering price, both human and financial, of every day of delay, have pushed technology to hyper-agile tactics, even in traditionally cautious fields such as medical devices and pharma.

b. In parallel to the hubris brought on by a truly overwhelming display of technological prowess, humanity discovers the limits of its power in confronting nature. Specifically, Silicon Valley, the standard bearer of technologic dominance, disappoints in its inability to contribute much to crucial issues.

c. New synergies discovered and collaborations forged between experts in medical devices, various branches of drug development, public health specialists, physicists, computer scientists, mathematicians and others will evolve and expand, accelerating the trend for creating multi-disciplinary labs, projects and companies.

d. Regulation rises to the occasion, relaxes constraints and enables accelerated development, learning that it is possible and opening doors that will be hard to close in the future, versus regulation learns its lesson the hard way after irresponsibly relaxing in its role as gatekeeper resulting in faulty equipment, errors in tests and raising of unrealistic expectations for cures.

e. Technologies at the service of human and social control proliferate, for detecting, monitoring, controlling, nudging, tracking and analyzing behaviors, are accelerating ever more, while raising and confirming concerns over privacy and disregard for human rights.

f. A host of technological enablers of digital transformation, seen pre-COVID as promising but still out of reach, thrusted into public consciousness as they are harnessed for anti-COVID purposes.

       4. Data

a. Dramatically ubiquitous, from popular media to sophisticated algorithms, nobody will ever doubt its importance, versus backlash that human phenomena, feelings, well being are irreducible to numbers and therefore data-based decisions should be limited in certain crucial domains

b. Data is a resource that grows in value when shared, and therefore huge push to share one’s data, versus data as scarce and most valuable of resources, and therefore tendency to greedily hoard it.

c. Citizens have become aware of the amount of data that governments possess relating to them. The good news: they are being listened to, their needs can be analyzed and treated, solutions can be customized. The frightening news: all the above can be converted to control and suppress.

d. New models emerge for sharing and ownership of data to allow both sharing and monetizing.

e. Crucial role of data in decision making: leaders realize that they need a dashboard of data to reach rational decisions, but the predominance of certain types of data (number of ill, number of dead) in public discourse also skews decisions towards simplistic approaches (e.g. decrease number of COVID casualties at the price of disregarding all other casualties and costs).

f. As the world’s reliance increases, so does the importance of mechanisms to validate their source, integrity and precision, but as the barriers to publish data diminish so does its fidelity.

D. The Globe, the Planet

       1. Sustainability

a. COVID provided a demo of the planet resting, air quality, animals resurging – maybe this experience will make it harder to fall back to our old polluting ways?

b. An opportunity for global collaboration to save ourselves by slowing down the pace, versus each country frantically throwing itself back into the race to make up for lost time compared to others.

c. Can the world agree on Global Sabbaths? We saw that we can withstand weeks of time-out and even enjoy some of the consequences, so can we decide on a day per week? A week per year?

d. Heightened consciousness of the situation given the dramatic impact of the global pause, and therefore: Opportunity for a Global Green New Deal? Or backlash to put aside sustainability in favor of “more pressing” issues?

e. Remember that while we humans put ourselves on pause for the CV, global warming and related negative phenomena have (mostly) continued. Will this serve as an argument for or against human made global warming?

       2. Global Politics

a. Humanity has finally united against a common, non-human enemy, and, realizing the huge potential of this unity, organizes itself to deal with the major global issues?

b. Nationalism and racism are further stoked by autocrats and shamed governments in search of scapegoats, while opportunities for “catastrophe diplomacy” abound, as traditional enemies express their solidarity sending materials and volunteers or sharing crucial information.

c. Xenophobia arises from fear of the other, the foreigner: “the virus” will always arrive from the outside, confirming deep seated fears of those who “don’t really belong here”, or “eat weird stuff”, etc.

d. New global organizations will be founded and existing ones strengthened as countries understand their crucial importance in defeating enemies that transcend borders, versus fatal weakening of global organizations as a chain effect of the US pulling out, cancelling its contribution to the WHO, blaming these organizations for the initial failure of global response to COVID.

e. As the role of data both increases and becomes more evident, and in parallel the most important challenges are recognized to be global, the need for a data sharing on a global scale is inescapable. The world creates the United Nations for Data.

f. Tectonic shifts among world’s superpowers: the US continues its decline, or proves its strength in rebounding and supplying the (bio?)technological solutions to the pandemic; Russia hit hard by plummeting petrol prices combined with what seems like inadequate and totally opaque treatment of the crisis; other BRICS in general in bad shape; EU while dealing with Brexit exposed as the elderly inefficient continent (in the south) or a model safety network for post-capitalism (in the north).

g. As traditional wars are put on pause, the rise of soft power in international relationship, expressed not in tanks and warships but through scientific, industrial and social strengths vs. rapid re-flame of numerous local and regional wars and fighting.

h. Increase in power of China and Asia, the “winners” of the crisis, vs. shrinking export from China and Asia due to CV trauma in rest of world

       3. Global Economy

a. As countries and peoples realize that GDP does not ensure real prosperity, an opportunity arises to break away from GDP as the god of indicators, replacing it with more subtle and complex measures that capture well-being and are therefore better guides for national strategies.

b. What will happen with the huge and growing debts of governments, businesses and individuals?

c. Widening of the inequality gap between countries (those who won from the crisis vs. those who lost), or the crisis as equalizer, where giants fall to their knees and smaller, poorer countries forge ahead with minor injuries?

d. Trigger to scale down globalization, the great pandemic accelerator, versus opportunity to create a more fair, transparent, equitable model of globalization, increasing collaboration and interdependence.

e. Will international alliances and organizations impose criteria about readiness for crisis on their members?

f. Huge government bailouts: exacerbating inequality (taxpayers funding corporates), versus fairer models in which taxpayers share rewards of the bailouts as well as their risks.

g. Unprecedented stock and commodity market volatility leading to strong disillusionment with current investment mechanisms and corresponding losses as the public’s money flees to safer options, versus opportunity for even bigger gain for a connected minuscule minority.

E. Work, Business

       1. Work, employment

a. Working from home, now proven to be effective, becomes widespread, versus emphasis on all we couldn’t achieve without physical presence will strengthen demand to be present. Will hybrid models proliferate?

b. Influence on home/office design and therefore on real estate?. Will offices become smaller and homes larger? Will this affect prices? Locations? Architecture?

c. Workplaces hygiene will become a dominant concern, versus the apparition of a “magic chemical” that will make efforts to maintain hygiene appear quaint in retrospect.

d. IT becomes even more important than it is today. It converts into your partner, holding your hand for all your remote activities. Dependence on IT grows – the worst thing that can happen to an employee is to be left without a connection.

e. The gig economy – exponential growth of the perfect format for digital experts, deliveries, nomads, minimizing proximity to co-workers, services for lockdown, outsourcing for cash deprived businesses, only solution for many employed and more.

f. The gig economy – dramatic weakening: fear of proximity to variety of strangers (Uber, AirBnB), workers yearning for the safety of a salary, pensions, safety net.

g. A great gap between how “essential” a worker is considered and how much they are being paid. Will essential workers be able to leverage the crisis to improve their lot, or will society search for and find ways to continue their exploitation?

       2. Business: General

a. Values: a tremendous opportunity for businesses to live up to and showcase their values, accumulating loyalty points in the eyes of customers and prospects, versus moment of truth when values are shelved in favor of cost cutting and survival mode.

b. Recovery from the crisis. Most businesses will bounce back rapidly thanks to: pent up consumer demand, loans and grants injected by governments, benefits of low oil prices, accelerated COVID and health related activity, large government projects and contracts, or: Catastrophic slow recovery due to: huge debt, businesses who failed to survive the lockdown, furloughs converted into unemployed, unemployed failing to rejoin workforce, chain effect of businesses hit by low oil, inconsistent and insufficient governmental recovery plans, deflationary effects of uncertainty and fear.

c. Emerging and declining businesses (winners and losers from the crisis). Obvious winners and losers from lockdown: hand sanitizers, Zooms, take-aways, Netflixes, healthcare, analytics for the former; airlines, tourism, car makers, art industry in the latter. But, also, suppliers of the abovementioned and others influenced indirectly. In some of these “losing” categories, survivors may surprisingly end up way ahead of their pre-pandemic position thanks to the disappearance of competitors who did not survive COVID-death valley.

d. New and old competitors: united against the common enemy, companies frantically and generously opened their knowledge and markets to newcomers in order to jointly supply, say, masks or respirators, which may lead to a beautiful future of collaboration, or, to a fight to the death with newcomer competitors.

       3. Retail

a. Buyers’ behavior post weeks/months of remote buying and limited budgets (for the majority): trend towards buying less, sticking to the necessary, versus hoarding mentality to prepare for any eventuality.

b. Limited movement drives shoppers back to small shops close to home, or strengthens large retail outlets that can offer and deliver bulk discounts.

c. Barriers broken for the pre-CV non-digital-savvy, leading to dramatically increased share of online shopping, or nostalgic impulse to return to the “good old shops” pre-CV.

d. Shopping centers, malls – will they survive the need for social distancing even months after the first wave abates? Will they evolve, in terms of interior design? Opening hours? Activities for shoppers (to keep them from running back home quickly)? Hybrid models of collaboration with digital channels?

e. Shops and independent retailers animated by close to home shopping, versus massive closures due to cash flow, loans, competition from large players?

f. New models of retail will sprout and grow, such as smart subscription retail (for those who can afford it), while the trend for locally sourced produce increases because of distrust of the far and foreign.

       4. Supply chains

a. Push for cost saving and efficiency leads to leaner distribution structures, while worries about maintaining supplies in times of crisis drive preference for distributed supply chains, with hubs nearer to end users.

b. Strong push for 3D printing and on-site manufacturing or last mile assembly to skip steps in distribution, versus recognition of the limitations of these technologies.

c. Manufacturers will put a premium on old and trusted relationship with suppliers, who can be trusted to deliver under any conditions, or widespread search for alternative suppliers, and the safer redundancy of multiple suppliers.

d. Companies opting for large inventories vs. just-in-time with close-by reliable suppliers.

e. As commercial flights and other means of transportation are prohibited, their providers close and/or their prices rise, alternative options for delivery will appear: drones, finally?

f. The benefits of globalized supply chains have been emphasized by their absence, but so have the dangers of relying on them. As local governments invoke various versions of the “Defense Production Act”, will globalization continue or will there be increased focus on localization and supply chain continuity?

       5. Transportation

a. Public transportation in pandemic times: increase in usage with alternative models, hygiene and spacing of passengers, versus decrease in usage per limited movement in public.

b. Rebound for autonomous shared vehicles, as users prefer to avoid proximity to drivers, vs. preference for own cars, with full control of access to strangers.

c. Uber and shared rides: surge as people avoid mass transport, versus crash as gig drivers without safety nets go bust vs. shift to drivers as employees

d. Strong adoption of alternative non-polluting fuels following rising consciousness of the damaging effects of oil-based, vs. return to oil guzzling habits due to record low prices.

       6. Manufacturing

a. Increased automation to minimize dependence on virus-sensitive humans vs. increased use of humans for remote operation of manufacturing equipment.

b. Versatility – proven ability to switch to manufacturing totally different products in crisis mode may lead to adoption of this flexibility in commercial contexts.

c. On-shoring backlash to off-shoring trend driven by: governments’ efforts to “bring back jobs”, fear of geographically long supply chains and increased automation.

d. Focus on redesign of plants for distancing and hygiene? And/or emphasis on workers’ well-being and health? Voluntary or driven by legislation?

Get our innovation model that has worked for 1000+ companies.

    No thanks, not now.

    Systematic Inventive Thinking
    Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.